[ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday

Hi Jordi,
On 10.02.21 14:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
> Hi Nigel,
> 
> I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity.

I do not see any facts supporting your claim.
> Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP) and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here.

This make no sense. If I would like to volunteer as a Adress Policy WG
chair, it does not mean I would like to volunteer as IOT WG chair.

> May be a model where we have a single "policy WG" (all the policies discussed in the same list) and the other WG for non-policy discussions.
> 
> If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot!

I assure you, there is more than one WG, that I have not active taking
part in and do not want to be forced to take in. It is not because I do
not value other WGs, but I lack the time for meaningful contributions.
If you want to foster participation, please do not try it by hinder
actual participants. If a such small crowd of actual participants is
real, I have no data on this, it contradicts your own statement of "lack
of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in
perpetuity".

> In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG.
> 
> I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year "rest".

I do not support this proposal.

Kind regards,
Christoph